Keeping pace with the ever-changing life sciences industry, Morrison Foerster stays on top of the trends and political, legal, and economic drivers to support striking the balance between innovative discovery and purposeful business planning to assure our clients continued success. MoFo Life Sciences shares timely legal and business insights and in-depth analyses on trends and the complex technologies at the heart of the global pharmaceutical, biotechnology, diagnostics, medical devices, digital health, and AgTech fields.Learn more about our <a href="https://www.mofo.com/capabilities/life-sciences-healthcare" target="_self">Life Sciences practice</a>.<h2 dir="ltr">ABOUT MORRISON FOERSTER</h2>Morrison Foerster is a leading global law firm that transforms complexity into advantage for its clients. Our clients include some of the largest financial institutions, banks, consulting and accounting firms, and Fortune 100, technology, and life sciences companies. Highlighting the firm’s commitment to client service, leadership in market-changing deals and impact litigation, and values-based culture, Morrison Foerster has been repeatedly recognized as one of the top 10 firms on The American Lawyer’s A-List. Year after year, the firm receives significant recognition from Chambers and The Legal 500 across their various guides, including Global, USA, Asia‑Pacific, Europe, UK, Latin America, and FinTech Legal. Our lawyers passionately care about delivering legal excellence while living our values. Morrison Foerster has a long-standing commitment to creating a culture that respects and celebrates differences, while providing an inclusive environment. The firm has achieved Mansfield Certification Plus since 2018 as a result of successfully reaching at least 30 percent women, communities of color, and LGBTQ+ lawyer representation in a notable number of current leadership roles and committees. The firm also has a long history of commitment to the community and society through providing pro bono legal services, including litigating for civil rights and civil liberties, improving public education and fostering the wellbeing of children, advocating for veterans, promoting international human rights, enforcing the right to asylum, and safeguarding the environment.

Social

Search

Subscribe

Life Sciences and Healthcare Group

Life Sciences Podcast

Patent Counseling + Prosecution

FDA Regulatory + Life Sciences Compliance

FDA + Healthcare Regulatory and Compliance 

Life Sciences Transactions + Licensing

Resources

Editors

230315-new-mofo-life-sciences-logo.jpg

Dr. Meghan Poon counsels clients on patent preparation and prosecution, portfolio strategy, and IP due diligence in the areas of biotechnology and biologics. She has significant experience in diverse technologies including antibodies, cell therapies, gene therapies, diagnostics, and gene-edited plants. She represents clients ranging from large international pharmaceutical companies to midsized companies, startups, and universities.Meghan has filed numerous Patent Term Extension applications to secure additional term for her clients’ patents, which cover FDA-approved products. In addition, Meghan has extensive experience addressing complex obviousness-double patenting and subject matter eligibility issues impacting her clients’ patent portfolios. Meghan also represents clients in both investor-side and target-side due diligence, in deals from seed funding to initial public offerings.Prior to law school, Meghan attended graduate school at the University of California, Los Angeles, where she received a Ph.D. in biological chemistry based on her work on protein-protein and protein-DNA interactions at a molecular level. Meghan is the author of several scientific publications and has presented her research at international conferences.Meghan received her J.D. from the University of Southern California Law School and spent a year as a visiting student at Santa Clara University, where she focused on intellectual property.

poon_meghan_blog_150x150.png

poon_meghan_common_640x280.jpg

poon_meghan_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

poon_meghan_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

poon_meghan_social_600x600.jpg

Partner

Dr. Meghan Poon counsels clients on patent preparation and prosecution, portfolio strategy, and IP due diligence in the areas of biotechnology and biologics. She has significant experience in diverse technologies including antibodies, cell therapies, gene therapies, diagnostics, and gene-edited plants.

Meghan Poon

Wolfgang advises clients on contentious and non-contentious matters involving their most valuable intellectual property assets in life sciences, digital, and high-tech industries.His subjects of focus include research and development collaborations, complex licensing agreements, and other technology transactions, as well as know-how protection strategies, and employee invention law. He also has substantial experience in litigating patents, trademarks, and other intellectual property assets, often in a multijurisdictional context. In addition, Wolfgang and his team frequently clear trademarks and ad campaigns and prosecute trademark applications.Wolfgang is co-editor of our <a href="https://lifesciences.mofo.com/" dir="ltr" target="_blank">MoFo Life Sciences Blog</a>.Wolfgang is a partner of Morrison Foerster based in our German office in Berlin.<h4 dir="ltr">Representative Transactional Matters</h4><ul dir="ltr"><li>U.S.-based BioTech fund on various research collaborations and other transactions with German start-ups or research institutions.</li><li>Negotiate multimillion-euro strategic partnership between two AgTech leaders concerning the development and commercialization of pest-resistant transgenic traits.</li><li>Craft global multi-million collaboration regarding AI-powered robotic MaaS.</li><li>UK-based digital health company on product roll-out of RPM applications in Germany; coordinate international expansion.</li><li>Advise numerous German start-ups on their U.S. expansion.</li><li>Draft diverse global patent and know-how license agreements in the areas of AgTech and life sciences—including gene licensing and licensing of genome editing technologies (e.g., CRISPR)—and medical devices; draft correlating supply and distribution agreements.</li><li>Structure IP rights in connection with joint ventures and other M&A transactions, including the carve-out of a patent-heavy semiconductor business comprising nine jurisdictions into a German–U.S. joint venture.</li><li dir="ltr">Advise on government-funded, multi-partner R&D projects and/or R&D projects with academic institutions, as well as on employee invention law.</li></ul><h4 dir="ltr">Representative Contentious IP Matters</h4><ul dir="ltr"><li>Lead counsel in an international dispute between software companies on rights and obligations following termination of a multi-million licensing and distribution arrangement; coordinate local counsel.</li><li>Defend Japanese chip manufacturer in high-profile SEP-litigation; advise on global settlement arrangement.</li><li>Represent leading internet retailer in patent infringement and concurrent invalidity proceedings in the context of a multijurisdictional dispute concerning touch-screen technology.</li><li>Represent diverse pharmaceutical and life sciences companies in national and cross-border patent infringement proceedings and other technology-related disputes, including preliminary injunctions as well as pre‑trial discovery and inspection proceedings, concerning, inter alia, drug-coating technologies, toner cartridges, medicinal gases, transgenic plants, and vaccines.</li><li dir="ltr">Conduct trademark, copyright, and false advertising litigation, including, most notably, a high-profile trademark litigation for a German bank, and a nine-country cross-border trademark litigation involving a famous pharmaceutical brand.</li></ul>

Dr. Wolfgang Schönig berät Mandanten zum Schutz des geistigen Eigentums sowohl in streitigen als auch nichtstreitigen Angelegenheiten, mit einem besonderen Fokus auf die IP-rechtliche Beratung von Unternehmen aus den Bereichen Life Sciences, Digitalwirtschaft und High-Tech.Zu seinen Beratungsschwerpunkten gehören Forschungs- und Entwicklungskooperationen, komplexe Lizenzvertragsgestaltungen und andereTechnologie-Transaktionen, sowie Know-how-Schutz-Strategien und das Arbeitnehmererfinderrecht. Er verfügt zudem über umfangreiche Prozesserfahrung zur Durchsetzung von Patenten, Marken- und anderen IP-Rechten, häufig auch in einem grenzüberschreitenden Kontext. Darüber hinaus bewertet Dr. Wolfgang Schönig zusammen mit seinem Team regelmäßig die Rechtskonformität von Werbekampagnen, prüft die Verfügbarkeit von Marken und entwickelt entsprechende Anmeldestrategien.Dr. Wolfgang Schönig ist Co-Editor des Life Sciences Blogs von Morrison Foerster.Er hat seinen Doktortitel an der Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf und seinen LL.M. an der Fordham School of Law in New York erworben, jeweils mit Schwerpunkt im gewerblichen Rechtsschutz. Seinen MBA-Abschluss erhielt er von der European University in Barcelona.Dr. Wolfgang Schönig ist Partner des deutschen Büros von Morrison Foerster in Berlin.<h4 dir="ltr">Repräsentative Transaktionen</h4><ul><li dir="ltr">BioTech-Fonds mit Sitz in den USA bei verschiedenen Forschungskooperationen und anderen Transaktionen mit deutschen Start-ups oder Forschungseinrichtungen</li><li dir="ltr">Verhandlung einer hochvolumigen strategischen Partnerschaft zwischen zwei Technologieführern im Bereich Crop Science betreffend der Entwicklung und Kommerzialisierung von bestimmten Resistenzen</li><li dir="ltr">Gestaltung einer globalen Multi-Millionen-Zusammenarbeit für KI-gestützte Roboter</li><li dir="ltr">Ein in Großbritannien ansässiges Unternehmen für digitale Gesundheit bei der Markteinführung von RPM-Anwendungen in Deutschland; Koordination der internationalen Expansion</li><li dir="ltr">Beratung zahlreicher deutscher Start-ups bei deren US-Expansion</li><li dir="ltr">Strukturierung und Verhandlung diverser Patent- und Know-How-Lizenzen in den Bereichen Ag Tech und Life Sciences – einschließlich Fragen zu genome editing wie CRISPR-Medizingeräte, sowie Gestaltung von Softwarelizenzverträgen und Erstellung korrespondierender Liefer- und Vertriebsvereinbarungen</li><li dir="ltr">Strukturierung von IP-Rechten im Zusammenhang mit Joint Ventures und anderen M&A-Transaktionen, darunter die Koordination eines neun Länder umfassenden IP Carve-Outs im Rahmen eines Halbleiter-JVs</li><li dir="ltr">Beratung zu staatlich geförderten Multi-Partner F&E-Projekten und/oder F&E-Projekten mit akademischen Einrichtungen sowie zum Arbeitnehmererfindungsrecht</li></ul><h4 dir="ltr">Repräsentative IP-Streitigkeiten</h4><ul><li dir="ltr">Lead Counsel in einem internationalen Rechtsstreit zwischen Softwareunternehmen über Rechte und Pflichten nach Beendigung einer millionenschweren Lizenz- und Vertriebsvereinbarung; Koordinierung der lokalen Anwälte</li><li dir="ltr">Verteidigung eines japanischen Chipherstellers in einem prominenten Streitfall bezüglich Standardessentieller Patente (SEP); Beratung zu einer globalen Vergleichsregelung</li><li dir="ltr">Verteidigung einer führenden Internetplattform gegen Ansprüche eines Patenttrolls wegen vermeintlicher Verletzung von Patent bezüglich Touchscreen-Technologie sowie korrespondierende US-Streitigkeiten</li><li dir="ltr">Vertretung von Pharma- und Life Science-Unternehmen in nationalen und grenzüberschreitenden Patentverletzungsverfahren und anderen technologiebezogenen Streitigkeiten, einschließlich einstweiliger Verfügungsverfahren und vorprozessualer Beweissicherungs- und Besichtigungsverfahren, unter anderem in Bezug auf Arzneimittelbeschichtungstechnologien, Tonerkartuschen, medizinische Gase, transgene Pflanzen und Impfstoffe</li></ul>

schonig_wolfgang_blog_150x150.png

schonig_wolfgang_common_640x280.jpg

schonig_wolfgang_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

schonig_wolfgang_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

schonig_wolfgang_social_600x600.jpg

Wolfgang Schönig is a partner of Morrison Foerster (International) LLP based in our German office in Berlin. His practice specialty is advising on IP aspects relative to transactions in, among others, the life sciences, AgTech and pharmaceuticals industry, as well as legal representation in IP disputes. Wolfgang is specialized in research and development collaborations, complex licensing agreements, technology acquisitions, know-how protection strategies, and employee invention law.

Wolfgang Schönig focuses his practice on IP aspects relative to transactions in the digital, telecoms, high tech, life sciences, and pharmaceuticals industry, as well as legal representation in IP disputes.

Wolfgang Schönig advises clients on IP aspects relating to transactions in, among others, the life sciences, AgTech and pharmaceuticals industry, as well as legal representation in IP disputes. His additional focus areas include research and development collaborations, complex licensing agreements, technology acquisitions, know-how protection strategies, and employee invention law.

Wolfgang Schönig

favicon.ico

favicon-16x16.png

favicon-32x32.png

apple-touch-icon.png

MoFo Favicons

MoFo Life Sciences shares timely legal and business insights and in-depth analyses on trends and the complex technologies at the heart of the global pharmaceutical, biotechnology, diagnostics, medical devices, digital health, and AgTech fields.

life-sciences-featured-image.jpg

life-sciences-featured-image

Announcements

Welcome to Mofo Life Sciences

Blog - Terms of Use

Cookies

Blog - Privacy Policy

Blog - Blog Disclaimer

Blog - Attorney Advertising

morrison-foerster-blog-logo.png

Brings together legal insights and in-depth analyses on trends and complex issues shaping the global technology industry.

MoFo Tech Blog

MOFO TECH

Equips our clients with the most up-to-date and relevant information on employment and labor law issues.

Employment Law Commentary

EMPLOYMENT LAW COMMENTARY

Stay on top of emerging issues and stay informed of developments related to the law and business of social media.

Socially Aware

SOCIALLY AWARE

In-depth analysis of developments and trends impacting government contracting.

Government Contracts Insights Blog

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS INSIGHTS

Provides insights and reports on the most current class actions lawsuits and product liability issues that affect consumer-facing companies.

Class Dismissed Blog

CLASS DISMISSED

MoFo Life Sciences

  Linkedin

MoFo LinkedIN

Life Sciences Blog - RSS

Stay Connected

Never miss a post from MoFo Life Sciences. Enter your email below to stay up-to-date.

Because No One is Immune to the Law

Morrison Foerster - Footer

Blogs -  Home Button

Home

Blog - Topics

AI + Robotics

Agtech

Antitrust

Asia

Bioinformatics

Biotech

Blockchain

Cell + Gene Therapy

CFIUS

Corporate + Venture Capital

COVID-19

Data Analytics

Digital Health

Employment

European Union

Financing

Global

Healthcare

Intellectual Property

Licensing + Commercial

Litigation

Medical Devices + Diagnostics

Pharma

Privacy + Data Security

Product Liability + Class Action

Rare Disease

Regulatory

Startup

United Kingdom

United States

Topics

Blog - Editors

Blog - About

About

Blog - Subscribe

Meghan McLean Poon Ph.D.

More

What is “Healthy?” Are Fats In?

Stop-Gap Spending Bill Provision Takes Aim at Biologics Patent Litigation

USPTO Fee Changes for 2025

An InSECURE Future: Court Ruling Guts USDA Regs on Genetically Engineered Plants

Uspto Withdraws Consideration of Controversial Change to Terminal Disclaimer Practice

LinkedIN

On September 7, 2022, the United States Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (USDA-APHIS) <a href="https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/newsroom/stakeholder-info/sa_by_date/sa-2022/purple-tomato">announced</a> the completion of the first Regulatory Status Review (RSR) of a genetically engineered plant under the SECURE rule. APHIS concluded that a new genetically engineered tomato produced by Norfolk Plant Sciences is unlikely to pose an increased plant pest risk compared to a conventional tomato, and is therefore not subject to regulation under the SECURE rule. This means that these tomato plants, which have been engineered to produce deep purple tomatoes with enhanced nutritional quality, may be legally imported, moved interstate, or “released” into the environment (including, for example, in a field trial) in the United States without a permit from APHIS.Notably, this finding also means that subsequent genetic transformation events involving the same combination of plant species, trait, and mechanism of action (“PTMOA”) as Norfolk Plant Sciences’ purple tomatoes are also no longer regulated under the SECURE rule. Thus, other subspecies and varieties of Solanum lycopersicum that have been modified to produce the same trait by the same mechanism of action—even if by different transgenic events—are now exempt under § 340.1(c) of the SECURE rule. More information on this so-called PTMOA exemption is available in APHIS’s “<a href="https://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/pdf/requesting-confirmation-of-exemption.pdf">Guide for Requesting a Confirmation of Exemption from Regulations under 7 CFR part 340</a>” (published August 31, 2022; document ID BRS-GD-2020-0001). This approach is different from the “event-by-event” regulation that was previously required, and represents the first time that APHIS has made an RSR determination under its new rules.Additional information about the contours of the SECURE rule and the genetic engineering that Norfolk Plant Sciences used to produce their purple tomato is provided below.About the SECURE RuleThe SECURE rule (7 CFR part 340) governs how APHIS regulates certain organisms developed using genetic engineering, with the goal of protecting U.S. agriculture from plant pest risks under the Plant Protection Act of 2000 (7 U.S.C. §§ 7701 et seq.). It replaced the previous version of 7 CFR part 340, which had been in place largely unchanged since APHIS’s biotechnology regulations were established in 1987, in phases between May 18, 2020 and October 1, 2021.The new regulations completely overhauled and streamlined the regulatory process for assessing the plant pest risk of organisms developed using genetic engineering, taking into account advances in scientific understanding, and focusing more on the properties of the engineered organism and less on the method(s) used to produce it.The revised regulations exempt certain types of modifications from regulation; such exemptions are self-determined, though developers may voluntarily request confirmation from APHIS that a given exemption applies. This exemption/confirmation process replaced the previous “Am I Regulated?” process on June 17, 2020, and APHIS has since issued 15 confirmation letters as of this writing, with the earliest in April 2021.However, no plant had made it through the new RSR process until now. The RSR process is an option for instances in which no SECURE rule exemptions apply to a given engineered plant, but the developer feels that the plant nonetheless does not pose an increased plant pest risk and should therefore not be regulated by the SECURE rule. The RSR process replaced the previous “petition” process for requesting deregulation from 7 CFR part 340 due to low likelihood of posing a plant pest risk.The RSR process became available for corn, soybean, cotton, potato, tomato, and alfalfa on April 5, 2021, and for all other plant species on October 1, 2021. APHIS received Norfolk Plant Sciences’ RSR request on August 4, 2021 and responded on September 6, 2022 (both the request and the response documents are available under RSR number 21-166-01rsr). As of this writing, Norfolk Plant Sciences’ tomato is the only RSR request publicly available on APHIS’s website.Under the RSR process, APHIS reviews “the biological properties of the plant; and the trait (or new characteristic); and the mechanism of action (or how the genetic modification causes the new trait to occur)” in order to evaluate plant pest risk. There are two potential steps to this process, depending on what APHIS determines during the first step. In Step 1, APHIS identifies whether the engineered plant poses a plausible pathway to increased plant pest risk compared to a “comparator” plant. If APHIS finds no such pathway, the RSR process concludes, and APHIS notifies the requestor that the plant in question is not subject to regulation under the SECURE rule. This was the outcome for Norfolk Plant Sciences’ tomato.On the other hand, if APHIS does determine that the engineered plant may plausibly pose an increased plant pest risk, there are several potential next steps. First, the developer may accept that the plant is regulated under the SECURE rule, and then either request a permit before moving or releasing the plant, or take no further action and not move or release the plant. Alternatively or additionally, the developer may request that APHIS proceed to Step 2 of the RSR process, which entails a more involved review, subsequent publication in the Federal Register, and solicitation and review of public comments before a final determination. As of this writing, no plant has gone through this second step of the RSR process.About the Purple TomatoAs described in its RSR request, Norfolk Plant Sciences created its purple tomato plant by Agrobacterium-mediated insertional mutagenesis of the “MicroTom” tomato variety, and subsequent crossing into other tomato varieties. The plants are engineered to increase expression of their natural anthocyanin pigments, which is what causes the fruits to have a deep purple color and also enhances their nutritional value.Specifically, the inserted DNA contains two transcription factors from the snapdragon plant (Antirrhinum majus), which serve to activate production of the tomato’s native anthocyanin biosynthesis pathway, causing increased anthocyanin production. Each of these two transcription factor genes, called Del and Ros1, is expressed from the T-DNA under a native tomato promotor that causes fruit-specific expression. The T-DNA also includes the nptII selectable marker with a promotor and terminator from Agrobacterium tumefaciens, which have a decades-long history of safe use and consumption.Complete genome sequencing revealed that the T-DNA was inserted at a single site in chromosome 4, accompanied by several small deletions. Phenotypic evaluation of the transformed plants revealed that they grew effectively the same as non-transgenic tomatoes, except that they produce deep purple fruit with significantly higher anthocyanin content. Photos of the plants and fruit are available in the published RSR request.APHIS considered the information disclosed in Norfolk Plant Sciences’ RSR request, alongside “publicly available resources, and APHIS’ familiarity with tomato and knowledge of the trait, phenotype, and mechanism of action” and “did not identify any plausible pathway by which [the] modified tomato, or any of its sexually compatible relatives, would pose an increased plant pest risk relative to a comparator tomato” (21-116-01 RSR Response, page 1). As such, APHIS concluded that these purple tomatoes are not subject to regulation under the SECURE rule.Other Regulatory AgenciesIt is important to note that deregulation from APHIS’s SECURE rule does not mean that the plant is wholly removed from U.S. federal regulatory oversight. For example, regulations implemented by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and/or other arms of USDA (such as Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ) import and export regulations, and/or Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) labeling requirements) may still apply. Along those lines, Norfolk Plant Sciences’ RSR request states that Norfolk Plant Sciences submitted a food and feed safety and nutritional assessment of the Purple Tomato to FDA under the voluntary <a href="https://www.cfsanappsexternal.fda.gov/scripts/fdcc/?set=NewPlantVarietyConsultations&sort=BNF_No&order=DESC&type=basic&search=">Biotechnology Notification Consultation program</a>, which was received as BNF number 178. As of this writing, FDA has not yet published a completed consultation for Norfolk Plant Sciences’ purple tomato.ConclusionThis regulatory review is an important milestone for regulation of genetically engineered plants in the United States. It is the first public test of the SECURE rule’s RSR process since its implementation more than a year ago, when it became one of the most scientifically progressive such review processes in the world, at least on paper. The deregulation of Norfolk Plant Sciences’ purple tomatoes shows that USDA-APHIS is embracing its new product-focused regulations. Although the review took more than a year—significantly longer than the 180 days promised by APHIS for Step 1—the process will likely become more efficient as the agency and developers become more familiar and comfortable with the new system. It will be interesting to see how the exemption and review processes grow and possibly become more streamlined with additional use.

Purple Tomato Is First Genetically Engineered Plant to Be Deregulated Through USDA’s New Regulatory Status Review Process

freeman-rosenzweig_liz_blog_150x150.png

freeman-rosenzweig_liz_common_640x280.jpg

freeman-rosenzweig_liz_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

freeman-rosenzweig_liz_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

freeman-rosenzweig_liz_social_600x600.jpg

Associate

Dr. Liz Freeman Rosenzweig focuses her practice on patent prosecution and intellectual property and regulatory counseling in the areas of life sciences and agricultural biotechnology, including AgTech

Liz Freeman Rosenzweig Ph.D.

Liz Freeman Rosenzweig

220912-grapes-blog.jpg

Purple Tomato Is First Genetically Engineered Plant to Be Deregulated Through USDA’s New Regulatory Status Review Process

220912-grapes-blog

On September 7, 2022, the United States Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (USDA-APHIS) announced the completion of the first Regulatory Status Review (RSR) of a genetically engineered plant under the SECURE rule. 

The use of machine learning (ML) in the medical device field has greatly expanded in recent years, becoming increasingly important to the product offerings of many medical device companies. The benefits provided by ML are wide-ranging and include providing earlier and more accurate diagnoses by detecting patterns in clinical data associated with disease, improving surgical outcomes through preoperative and intraoperative surgical guidance, and enabling the development of personalized diagnostics and therapeutics. Medical device companies should look to build a robust patent portfolio for their ML inventions. This raises the question of how to build a patent portfolio for ML inventions in the medical device field. ML involves the training of mathematical models to draw conclusions from data, such as medical images or other clinically relevant data. While mathematical models by themselves are not eligible for patenting, their application to achieve practical results is patentable. Broadly speaking, patents for ML‑based inventions fit into three broad categories. <ul><li>Applications of ML. This category includes patents directed to novel results achieved using ML. Examples of ML applications in the medical device field include automatic identification of anatomical structures in imaging, automatic diagnoses from patient data, and patient recovery tracking. Patents in this category are often the most valuable, both because of their breadth of coverage and because infringing activity can be readily detected, often from advertising materials and use of the product. </li><li>Structure of the ML model. The structure of the ML model refers to the structure of the mathematical algorithm itself and how it processes data. Although mathematical algorithms by themselves are not eligible for patenting, the application of a novel ML model to a practical application can be patented. Patents in this category are often less valuable because their scope is narrower and detection of infringement is more difficult.</li><li>ML model training. This category includes patents directed to the process for training an ML model to achieve its purpose. Training of an ML model is critical to how well it performs and thus can be one of the most important aspects of developing an ML solution. However, infringement of patents in this category is often very difficult to detect because the process for training is typically not advertised or apparent from the use of the product.</li></ul>Although patents directed to the applications of ML are typically the most valuable, medical device companies should also pursue patents to ML model structure and training because these patents contribute to the benefits that a robust patent portfolio provides, including:<ul><li>Deterring others from practicing the invention. Patents, of course, can be used to prevent others from making and using an invention. However, patents that are unlikely to ever be asserted still serve as a deterrent from copying and as a roadblock to the ability of competitors to innovate their own products. </li><li>Providing freedom to operate. Filing a patent application ensures that an invention is in the public space and thereby cannot be patented by anyone that invents the same thing later. Preventing others that create the same invention at a later date from patenting the invention ensures a company’s ability to practice its own technology. This is an important countervailing consideration to keeping an ML invention as a trade secret since trade secret protections do not protect against independent invention and patenting.</li><li>Advertising to investors. This benefit is most relevant to emerging companies looking for investments or acquisitions. Patents can serve as advertisements of the technical capabilities and sophistication of a company. They provide investors with the ability to “look under the hood” and make their own independent assessment of the value of the underlying ML technology.</li></ul>Given the increasing importance of ML in the medical device market, robust patent portfolios protecting ML innovations can help ensure that medical device companies reap the benefits of their valuable innovations.

The Importance of Patents for ML-Based Medical Device Inventions

gloria_christopher_blog_150x150.png

gloria_christopher_common_640x280.jpg

gloria_christopher_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

gloria_christopher_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

gloria_christopher_social_600x600.jpg

Christopher Gloria is a partner in the firm’s Patent Group. Mr. Gloria’s practice concentrates on domestic and international patent prosecution, IP due diligence, and IP litigation support including patent infringement and validity determinations.

Christopher Gloria

healthcare.jpg

The Importance of Patents for ML-Based Medical Device Inventions

220829-healthcare-blog-post

The use of machine learning (ML) in the medical device field has greatly expanded in recent years, becoming increasingly important to the product offerings of many medical device companies.

On July 29, 2022, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued a <a href="https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2022-07-29/pdf/2022-16299.pdf">Notice</a> in the Federal Register clarifying the duty of disclosure that may keep patent practitioners up at night. The Notice reminds applicants of the duties of disclosure and “reasonable inquiry” for proceedings before the USPTO or Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). It is an outgrowth of President Biden’s 2021 <a href="https://lifesciences.mofo.com/topics/biden-administration-executive-order-on-promoting-competition-in-the-american-economy-drug-pricing-and-healthcare-industry-initiatives">Executive Order on Promoting Competition in the American Economy</a>, in which the acting U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner <a href="https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/EO14036-FDALettertoPTO.pdf">wrote to</a> the acting USPTO Director highlighting numerous areas in which the USPTO and FDA could work together to reduce drug costs. In particular, the Notice emphasized the duty to disclose material information and statements from communications with the FDA. Companies that make submissions to both the USPTO and the FDA, such as pharmaceutical companies and medical device manufacturers, should pay special attention to the Notice.Disclosing Information Received from the FDAAs part of an abbreviated new drug application (ANDA), generics can provide arguments that patents covering the innovator drug are invalid in a Paragraph IV certification. The Paragraph IV certifications are then communicated to the patent owners by the FDA.The duty of “reasonable inquiry” under 37 C.F.R 11.18(b)(2) requires that each party submitting a paper to the USPTO perform an inquiry that is reasonable under the circumstances to confirm the accuracy and consistency of statements made therein, but does not detail what is involved in a reasonable inquiry.The Notice now expressly clarifies that the duty of reasonable inquiry includes reviewing paragraph IV certifications received by patent owners to determine their materiality to patentability of any pending matters before the USPTO. “If the content of the detailed statement, or other information that is part of the ANDA process, is deemed material to patentability in a pending USPTO matter, then such information must be submitted to the USPTO during the pendency of the matter, to meet the duties of candor and good faith and disclosure under 37 CFR 1.56, 1.555, 42.11(a) or (c), or 11.18(b)(2),” the Notice states.Additionally, the Notice warns that merely submitting the FDA’s listing of paragraph IV certifications to the USPTO does not satisfy the duty of disclosure, since these lists “do not include patent numbers, relevant claims, or an explanation of the basis for the certification.”Importance of Consistency in Statements Before the USPTO and FDAThe Notice underscores the importance of consistency in statements made before the USPTO and the FDA. Specifically, the Notice states that “providing material information to other Government agencies, including the FDA, while simultaneously withholding the same information from the USPTO undermines both the intent and spirit of the duty of disclosure and violates those duties.”A recent Federal Circuit decision, <a href="https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/20-1799.opinion.9-1-2021_1828017.pdf">Belcher Pharmaceuticals v. Hospira</a> (Fed. Cir. Sept. 1, 2021), was cited as an example in which “inconsistent statements submitted to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to secure approval of a product—asserting that the product is the same as a prior product that is already on the market—can then be directly contradicted by statements made to the [USPTO] to secure a patent on the product.”In <a href="https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2021/09/02/federal-circuit-upholds-delaware-courts-inequitable-conduct-analysis/id=137298/">Belcher</a>, the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s ruling that a patent covering a formulation of the drug epinephrine is unenforceable due to inequitable conduct. In a new drug application (NDA) filed with the FDA, Belcher’s Chief Scientific Officer had submitted several prior art references disclosing an “old” pH range for the epinephrine formulation. During prosecution before the USPTO, however, Belcher failed to disclose the references submitted to the FDA, and argued that the claims were patentable because the same pH range was “was unexpectedly found to be critical by the Applicant to reduce the racemization of l-epinephrine.”Key TakeawaysBelcher illustrates the key tension between relying on existing information for regulatory approval and establishing novelty and non-obviousness for patentability purposes. Parties involved in proceedings before the USPTO or PTAB that are seeking FDA approval should take special care to ensure consistency and coordination of strategies. As part of the duty of reasonable inquiry, parties should ensure that information and statements received from or submitted to the FDA are reviewed by both FDA regulatory counsel and patent counsel for potential materiality to patentability and disclosure to the USPTO or PTAB. This duty cannot be avoided by deliberate schemes to prevent individuals with the duty of disclosure from obtaining knowledge of material information, which the Notice indicates is “inappropriate.”Finally, parties should err on the side of disclosure to avoid allegations of inequitable conduct. As stated in the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure and reiterated in the Notice, “[in] close cases where the materiality or consistency of the information is in question, the applicant should consider submitting this information to the USPTO.” Given the significant leadership attention this topic has received at both the FDA and the USPTO, and the political pressure on both agencies to assist in the Biden administration’s efforts to reduce drug costs, the FDA and USPTO are likely both considering enforcement tools that may be employed to ensure appropriate disclosures.

Recent Biden Administration Efforts on Drug Pricing: USPTO Notice Focuses on Eliminating Inconsistencies in USPTO/FDA Statements

Dr. Meghan Poon counsels clients on patent preparation and prosecution, portfolio strategy, and IP due diligence in the areas of biotechnology and biologics. She has significant experience in diverse technologies including antibodies, cell therapies, gene therapies, diagnostics, and gene-edited plants. 

kingman_kelsey-roberts_blog_150x150.png

kingman_kelsey-roberts_common_640x280.jpg

kingman_kelsey-roberts_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

kingman_kelsey-roberts_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

kingman_kelsey-roberts_social_600x600.jpg

Patent Agent

Building on her research experience in cellular and molecular biology, Dr. Kelsey Roberts Kingman focuses her work on patent drafting and assisting prosecution, patent analysis, and patent due diligen

Kelsey J. Roberts Kingman Ph.D.

Kelsey Roberts Kingman

Recent Biden Administration Efforts on Drug Pricing: USPTO Notice Focuses on Eliminating Inconsistencies in USPTO/FDA Statements

On July 29, 2022, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued a Notice in the Federal Register clarifying the duty of disclosure that may keep patent practitioners up at night. 

Our <a href="https://federalcircuitry.mofo.com/topics/last-week-in-the-federal-circuit-august-15-august-19-the-court-rebuffs-patent-owner-s-attempt-to-read-anda-application-in-isolation">Federal Circuitry blog</a> recently discussed the Court's decision in <a href="https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-2342.OPINION.8-18-2022_1993064.pdf">Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. Eagle Pharmaceuticals, Inc</a>., No. 21-2342.You should read this case if: you have an ANDA case involving “actual, real-world evidence” that might conflict with what the ANDA saysFor our case of the week, we turn to the ANDA world. As readers know and in the simplest of terms, an ANDA is an Abbreviated New Drug Application, which a generic drug manufacturer (which we’ll off-and-on refer to as the ANDA applicant) files with the FDA to seek approval to sell a generic version of a brand name drug. Before the generic goes on the market, the brand manufacturer can file an action to enjoin the generic from reaching the market. Ordinarily, it does so under Section 271(e)(2), which makes it an (artificial) act of infringement for an ANDA applicant to file an ANDA that infringes the brand manufacturer’s patent claims. Section 271(e)(2) requires comparing the patent claims to the ANDA’s specification—as the proposed generic product must meet the ANDA’s specifications.<a href="https://federalcircuitry.mofo.com/topics/last-week-in-the-federal-circuit-august-15-august-19-the-court-rebuffs-patent-owner-s-attempt-to-read-anda-application-in-isolation">Read more</a>.

Last Week in the Federal Circuit (August 15 – August 19): The Court Rebuffs Patent Owner’s Attempt to Read Anda Application in Isolation

matsui_brian_blog_150x150.png

matsui_brian_common_640x280.jpg

matsui_brian_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

matsui_brian_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

matsui_brian_social_600x600.jpg

Brian Matsui co-chairs Morrison Foerster’s Appellate and Supreme Court practice. Brian is a go-to appellate advocate for sophisticated clients in complex appeals nationwide. 

Brian R. Matsui

Brian Matsui is a partner in Morrison Foerster’s Appellate and Supreme Court practice. For nearly 20 years, Brian has been a go-to appellate advocate for sophisticated clients in complex appeals nationwide. Clients turn to Brian for his substantial experience in patent appeals in the Federal Circuit. He has argued more than 10 times in that Court, winning appeals from both district courts and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Brian excels at applying significant legal principles to complex technologies in a way that distills them for the Court. He has done so for companies in a myriad of industries, including mobile device manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies, medical device companies, memory manufacturers, movie studios, and software companies.

Brian Matsui

220822-medica-syringes-blog.jpg

Last Week in the Federal Circuit (August 15 – August 19): The Court Rebuffs Patent Owner’s Attempt to Read Anda Application in Isolation

220822-medical-syringes-blog

Our Federal Circuitry blog recently discussed the Court's decision in Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. Eagle Pharmaceuticals, Inc., No. 21-2342.

Our Federal Circuitry blog recently discussed the Court's decision in <a href="https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/19-2054.OPINION.8-11-2022_1990706.pdf" target="_blank">Hologic, Inc. v. Minerva Surgical, Inc.</a>, No. 19-2054.You should read this case if: you want to know how the Federal Circuit will treat assignor estoppel post-MinervaYou have to feel a little sorry for a party that beats the incredible odds of getting Supreme Court review only to end up with the same result. That’s what happened in our case of the week. Unless you’ve been living under a rock (or the proverbial equivalent of a rock in patent-land—the MPEP maybe), you’re no doubt aware of one of the few relatively recent Supreme Court patent cases: <div><a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-440_9ol1.pdf" target="_blank">Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc. </a>(And once again, here’s where a few readers shed a tear for what could have been in American Axle.) As a recap, the Supreme Court granted cert to decide whether the doctrine of assignor estoppel found any support in patent law. Assignor estoppel precludes an assignor of a patent from later challenging that patent’s validity. At least initially, smart money was on the “no” side, as nothing in the U.S. Code expressly provides for assignor estoppel, and this is supposedly a textualist Supreme Court.</div>

Last Week in the Federal Circuit (August 8 – August 12): Taking a round Trip on the Assignor Estoppel Express

220816-aircraft-thumbnail.jpg

Last Week in the Federal Circuit (August 8 – August 12): Taking a round Trip on the Assignor Estoppel Express

220816-last-week-in-the-federal-circuit

For most of us, we’re stuck in the August heat, on delayed European vacations, or hopefully just hanging out at the beach. But for the Court it still was work as usual, including a return trip to the Federal Circuit for the defendant in Minerva. Below we provide our usual weekly statistics and a detailed discussion of our case of the week—our highly subjective selection based on whatever case piqued our interest.

The Beni Suef Economic Court in Egypt has recently ordered the removal of nearly five hectares of illegally grown Early Sweet™ grapevines, totaling 9000 vines and associated seedlings. The farm owner did not have a license to grow or commercialize the Early Sweet™ grapes and was found to be infringing the intellectual property (IP) rights held by Grapa Varieties Ltd. The case against the farm owner was won by Grapa, which specializes in breeding and licensing premium table grape varieties under the ARRA™ and Early Sweet™ brands. The particular IP right at issue was a plant breeders’ right (PBR) owned by Grapa.PBRs are similar to other forms of IP, such as patents, but are a sui generis form of IP protection available in many countries specifically for plant varieties. Egypt introduced its national plant variety protection system in 2002 under Law 82. Although negotiations regarding an association agreement for Egypt to be considered for membership in the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV) began in 1995, Egypt did not accede to UPOV until 2019, after establishing compliance with the 1991 revised version of the UPOV Convention.  Grapa Varieties Ltd. previously dealt with illegal grape exports into Europe in June 2021 when illegally exported grapes were <a href="https://grapaes.com/the-power-of-enforcement/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=the-power-of-enforcement">seized in a port and destroyed</a>. However, the new removal order is the first instance when enforcement has protected the PBRs at the origin of the fruit inside Egypt. The Beni Suef Economic Court ruling thus reflects a significant expansion in the industry protection of PBRs in Egypt, and comes as part of a wider crackdown on illegal fruit exports. This crackdown has been assisted by a decree issued last year by Egypt’s Minister of Agriculture, H.E. El-Sayed El-Quseir, which requires all farms to be registered and assessed before gaining the right to export. Infringements, such as from the propagation, sale, display, or export of the variety without a license, now result in a fine and the possibility of a custodial sentence.The order from the Beni Suef Economic Court demonstrates the commitment of Egypt’s phytosanitary authorities to protect the rights of plant breeders and their legitimate licensees within the country. The outcome of this case is likely to resonate throughout the export industry, as repeated incidents of export seizures incur significant financial losses for exporters, and negatively impact Egypt’s international reputation in the agricultural sector. Given that Egypt exports around 150,000 tonnes of grapes a year and has cornered the market as the world’s largest exporter of fresh oranges, relying on seizures at the export stage to protect plant IP would be worrying and expensive. The protection afforded through PBRs within Egypt is thus instrumental in ensuring that the IP holder does not experience a loss in revenue caused by illegal production and importation. <a href="https://grapaes.com/illegal-early-sweet-grapes-uprooted-in-egypt/">Sources</a> believe the citrus market is next in line for the IP shake-up.The <a href="https://www.freshfruitportal.com/news/2022/07/13/grapa-wins-legal-case-against-illegal-planting-in-egypt/">well-publicized protection</a> of Grapa’s PBRs by the Court will boost breeders’ confidence that pursuing illegal plantations, nurseries, and exporters in Egypt is not only achievable, but is expected of the phytosanitary authorities. This will have the additional benefit of strengthening Egypt’s image in international markets, thus improving Egypt’s ability to access new protected plants and create a healthy climate for breeders to invest in Egypt.

IN VINEIS VERITAS: NO SOUR GRAPES AS EGYPTIAN COURT ORDERS REMOVAL OF ILLEGAL VINES

IN VINEIS VERITAS: NO SOUR GRAPES AS EGYPTIAN COURT ORDERS REMOVAL OF ILLEGAL VINES

The Beni Suef Economic Court in Egypt has recently ordered the removal of nearly five hectares of illegally grown Early Sweet™ grapevines, totaling 9000 vines and associated seedlings. The farm owner did not have a license to grow or commercialize the Early Sweet™ grapes and was found to be infringing the intellectual property (IP) rights held by Grapa Varieties Ltd. The case against the farm owner was won by Grapa, which specializes in breeding and licensing premium table grape varieties under the ARRA™ and Early Sweet™ brands. The particular IP right at issue was a plant breeders’ right (PBR) owned by Grapa.

Thanks to our Life Sciences Transactions + Licensing Group, including Matthew Karlyn, Mai Zymaris, and Hannah Koo, for contributing to this post.Earlier this month, Senators Brian Schatz (D-HI) and Cory Booker (D-NJ) sent a <a href="https://www.schatz.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/nih__fda_psychedelic_research_letter.pdf" target="_blank">letter to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)</a> urging both agencies to advance research on the therapeutic effects of psychedelic drugs.[1] This letter comes at a time when psychedelics are garnering increased attention for their potential medical and therapeutic benefits, and shedding some of the stigma that has dogged them since the 1960s. Widespread approval for psychedelic treatments remains unlikely, but the tide is slowly turning. For the regulated community, this is a trend worth watching.Defining PsychedelicsPsychedelics are “powerful psychoactive substances that alter perception and mood and affect numerous cognitive processes.”[2] Psychedelics include natural substances such as psilocybin (the active compound in mushrooms) and peyote, as well as synthetic substances like LSD and MDMA. Generally speaking, psychedelics are considered to be physiologically safe and non-addictive.[3]While psychedelics are not new, medical research around psychedelics has exploded in recent years. In May 2021, a Nature Medicine study showed the benefits of MDMA in relieving post-traumatic stress disorder.[4] In April 2021, a separate study from the New England Journal of Medicine demonstrated the efficacy of psilocybin in reducing symptoms of depression.[5] The Journal of the American Medical Association published similar findings in May 2021.[6]Around the same time, psychedelics have become increasingly socially acceptable for medicinal purposes. Celebrated author Michael Pollan has published two bestselling books on the topic: How to Change Your Mind and This is Your Mind on Plants. Silicon Valley and Wall Street have begun investing money into psychedelics research and development.[7] And cities around the country are beginning to decriminalize some psychedelics, with advocates for decriminalization citing the potential medical benefits. In May 2019, Denver became the first city to decriminalize psilocybin, followed by Oakland, CA, Washington, D.C., and Seattle, among other municipalities. In 2020, Oregon became the first locale to decriminalize psilocybin and legalize it for therapeutic use on a statewide basis. But despite all of these developments, FDA approval for psychedelics faces an uphill battle.Recent Regulatory DevelopmentsAlthough the path to FDA approval for psychedelics is steep, it is not impossible. In 2019, FDA approved Spravato (esketamine) nasal spray for treatment of depression in adults.[8] Spravato is derived from ketamine and categorized by DEA as a Schedule III controlled substance. FDA granted Breakthrough Therapy designation for Spravato in 2013 and ultimately approved it for adults who have not responded to treatment after trying other antidepressant medications. To mitigate safety risks, FDA implemented a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) with elements to assure safe use (ETASU) whereby patients self-administer the spray in their healthcare provider’s office under medical supervision.More recently, MDMA therapy has inched closer to FDA approval. In 2017, <a href="https://maps.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/2017.08.15-IND063384GrantBreakthroughTherapyDesignation1_Redacted.pdf" target="_blank">FDA granted a request for Breakthrough Therapy designation</a> for MDMA to treat PTSD. As previously mentioned, clinical studies are promising, including a Phase 3 trial (the last step before submitting an NDA) completed last November.[9] Experts predict that this therapy could receive full FDA approval as soon as 2023.[10] In the meantime, FDA has approved some requests for compassionate use.[11]ChallengesResearch institutions or other investigators wanting to explore psychedelics for potential medical uses have numerous regulatory and legal challenges to consider. Here are the top five considerations: 1. Clinical Trials and Human Subject ProtectionsBefore the drug approval process even begins, sponsors must initiate clinical investigations by first filing an Investigational New Drug Application (IND) with FDA. An IND will require a clinical trial protocol in which an Institutional Review Board (IRB) must review and monitor the welfare, rights, and privacy of human subjects in the clinical trial. FDA’s approval of an IND will also require sufficient evidence that the trial will be safe for human subjects. These will likely be significant hurdles to overcome, given the high risks involved in research with controlled substances. 2. DEA and the Controlled Substances ActIn addition to the arduous FDA approval process, potential psychedelic therapies would also require complying with requirements from the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). Under the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, DEA classifies drugs into one of five schedules. Schedule I drugs are those that DEA considers to have no medical value and a high potential for abuse.[12] This category includes the psychedelics LSD, ecstasy, and mushrooms. Schedule I controlled substances are the most restricted in terms of research, supply, and access,[13] and possession is criminalized. To perform clinical studies with Schedule I substances, researchers have to apply for a special DEA license.[14] These licenses are hard to get and narrowly proscribe permissible research. These hurdles make it hard to conduct clinical research around psychedelics.The complex regulatory challenges around researching controlled substances have been a hot topic in recent years because of interest around medical marijuana. DEA classifies marijuana as a Schedule I substance, while at the same time researchers have long touted its potential medical benefits.[18] While FDA has not approved cannabis per se for any treatment, FDA has approved four cannabis-derived or -related drug products to date.[20] This underscores that regulatory approval for drugs derived from controlled substances is feasible. 3. Approval PathwaysFDA has developed four approaches for expediting the approval process. Fast Track review is for drugs that treat serious conditions and fill an unmet medical need. Breakthrough Therapy is for drugs that may represent a significant improvement over existing therapies. Accelerated Approval is similar to Fast Track review, but used a surrogate endpoint rather than a measure of a clinical benefit. Finally, Priority Review is a designation that means FDA intends to respond to an application within six months. Researchers developing psychedelics should consider which of these pathways to pursue, as applicable, since they all confer significant advantages in the approval process. 4. REMS RequirementsFDA sometimes requires a REMS to ensure that the benefits of an approved drug outweigh its risks. A REMS with ETASU may be appropriate for a controlled substance, such as strict restrictions on the distribution of the drug product and certifications for prescribers and pharmacists. These requirements are relatively rare, but FDA would almost certainly impose them for approved psychedelics, as it did with Spravato. Sponsors should be aware that REMS with ETASU may increase compliance risk and limit commercial options. 5. Transactional/CorporateResearching and developing a drug product that is a controlled substance also poses unique challenges outside of the regulatory context. Ensuring that contracts that govern the supply of the research substance comply with applicable laws is critical. Furthermore, contracts with research organizations must be properly tailored to ensure appropriate human subject protection and data integrity. Despite the surge in the number of research institutes and universities interested in conducting psychedelics research, many transactional challenges continue to impede the negotiation of research and development agreements in the field. Key challenges include: (i) the necessity of researcher compliance with strict and extensive institutional policies and regulation of controlled substances, separate from, and in addition to, any relevant state and federal licensing and regulatory requirements; (ii) the logistics of legally procuring, storing, securing, and disposing of controlled substances; (iii) the difficulty of obtaining federal or other funding for research and development in this field; (iv) heightened concerns about institutional reputation when researching and developing drugs that are also controlled substances; and (v) the costs of compliance with privacy and data protection laws as well as the consequences of non-compliance with respect to research subjects’ personally identifiable information. From an investor perspective, researching a controlled substance will mean a particularly thorough due diligence, so a rigorous legal and compliance infrastructure should be built at an early stage.ConclusionRecent regulatory and scientific developments—along with the push from Senators Schatz and Booker—signal that FDA approval for psychedelics may be on the horizon. Drug sponsors and investors alike should carefully consider the legal challenges in developing strategic plans in this exciting area of drug development. [1] Letter from Sens. Brian Schatz & Cory Booker to Acting Director Tabak and Commissioner Califf (May 11, 2022), <a href="https://www.schatz.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/nih__fda_psychedelic_research_letter.pdf">https://www.schatz.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/nih__fda_psychedelic_research_letter.pdf</a>.[2] David E. Nichols, Psychedelics, 68 Pharmacological Rev. 264, 266 (Apr. 2016).[3] Id. at 275.[4] Jennifer M. Mitchell et al., MDMA-assisted therapy for severe PTSD: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 study, 27 Nature Med. 1025, 1025 (2021)[5] Robin Carhart-Harris et al., Trial of Psilocybin Versus Escitalopram for Depression, 384 New England J. Med. 1402, 1402 (2021).[6] Alan K. Davis et al., Effects of Psilocybin-Assisted Therapy on Major Depressive Disorder, 78 JAMA Psychiatry 1, 1 (2021).[7] Shalini Ramachandran, Silicon Valley and Wall Street Elites Pour Money into Psychedelic Research, Wall St. J. (Aug. 20, 2020), <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/silicon-valley-and-wall-street-elites-pour-money-into-psychedelic-research-11597941470">https://www.wsj.com/articles/silicon-valley-and-wall-street-elites-pour-money-into-psychedelic-research-11597941470</a>.[8] FDA approves new nasal spray medication for treatment-resistant depression; available only at a certified doctor’s office or clinic, FDA (Mar. 5, 2019), <a href="https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-approves-new-nasal-spray-medication-treatment-resistant-depression-available-only-certified">https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-approves-new-nasal-spray-medication-treatment-resistant-depression-available-only-certified</a>.[9] Rachel Nuwer, A Psychedelic Drug Passes a Big Test for PTSD Treatment, N.Y. Times (Nov. 11, 2021), <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/03/health/mdma-approval.html">https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/03/health/mdma-approval.html</a>.[10] See id.[11] A Multi-site Expanded Access Program for MDMA-assisted Psychotherapy for Patients with Treatment-resistant PTSD (EAMP1), NIH, <a href="https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04438512">https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04438512</a> (last visited May 16, 2022).[12] DEA, Drug Scheduling, formerly at https://www.dea.gov/drug-information/drug-scheduling (last visited May 13, 2022).[13] See Jennifer M. Mitchell, A Psychedelic May Soon Go to the FDA for Approval to Treat Trauma, Sci. Am. (Feb. 1, 2022), <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-psychedelic-may-soon-go-to-the-fda-for-approval-to-treat-trauma/">https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-psychedelic-may-soon-go-to-the-fda-for-approval-to-treat-trauma/</a>.[14] Id.[15] Matt Lamkin, Prescription Psychedelics: The Road from FDA Approval to Clinical Practice, 135 Am. J. Med. 15, 15-16 (Jan. 2022).[16] Douglas C. Throckmorton, Dep. Dir. for Reg. Programs, CDER, Researching the Potential Medical Benefits and Risks of Marijuana (July 12, 2016), <a href="https://www.fda.gov/news-events/congressional-testimony/researching-potential-medical-benefits-and-risks-marijuana-07122016-07122016">https://www.fda.gov/news-events/congressional-testimony/researching-potential-medical-benefits-and-risks-marijuana-07122016-07122016</a>.[17] FDA, Assessment of Abuse Potential of Drugs: Guidance for Industry (Jan. 2017), <a href="https://www.fda.gov/media/116739/download">https://www.fda.gov/media/116739/download</a>; see also 21 U.S.C. § 811(b)–(c).[18] See generally Nat’l Acad. of Sci., Eng’g, and Med., The Health Effects of Cannabis and Cannabinoids: The Current State of Evidence and Recommendations for Research (2017).[19] Throckmorton, supra note 16.[20] FDA Regulation of Cannabis and Cannabis-Derived Products, Including Cannabidiol (CBD), FDA, <a href="https://www.fda.gov/news-events/public-health-focus/fda-regulation-cannabis-and-cannabis-derived-products-including-cannabidiol-cbd#whatare">https://www.fda.gov/news-events/public-health-focus/fda-regulation-cannabis-and-cannabis-derived-products-including-cannabidiol-cbd#whatare</a> (last visited May 16, 2022).

05_28_appellate_blog_image16.jpg

Senators Call for Report on State of Psychedelic Research

Thanks to our Life Sciences Transactions + Licensing Group, including Matthew Karlyn, Mai Zymaris, and Hannah Koo, for contributing to this post.
Earlier this m

Senators Call for Report on State of Psychedelic Research

On May 6, 2022, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued a Notice, proposing to amend the Rules of Practice in Patent Cases to allow electronic submissions of patent term extension (PTE) applications, interim PTE applications, and any related submissions to the USPTO via the USPTO patent electronic filing system (EFS-Web or Patent Center).[1]Electronic filing of initial submissions for PTE was prohibited prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. Due to the workplace changes caused by the pandemic, the USPTO temporarily waived its prohibition on the electronic filing of initial submissions for PTE and the triplicate copy requirements in <a target="_blank" href="https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-37/section-1.740#p-1.740(b)">37 CFR 1.740(b)</a> and <a target="_blank" href="https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-37/section-1.790#p-1.790(b)">1.790(b)</a>. Since then, the USPTO has received informal feedback from stakeholders that communicated unanimous support for electronic filing of initial PTE submissions. Additionally, the USPTO and its partner agencies have successfully implemented a new system that allows the USPTO to electronically transmit a copy of the PTE submission to the relevant agency without causing any processing errors. Accordingly, the USPTO is proposing to change its rule of practice permanently.The USPTO has created several new document descriptions for electronic submissions, including “Limited POA and/or Change of Address for a Patent Term Extension Application” for limited powers of attorney and/or changes of correspondence address that are filed specifically for the PTE application. These new descriptions are likely to reduce processing errors by the USPTO, especially where the PTE applicant engages a different law firm for prosecution of the PTE application than for the underlying patent, or where the PTE applicant is a different entity than the patent applicant.Furthermore, as has been the case since the June 2020 electronic filing waiver went into effect, the proposed rule changes will result in PTE applications being viewable on the USPTO electronic viewing systems (Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system or Patent Center) immediately upon filing. This provides an opportunity for companies to have better competitive intelligence. Whereas third parties previously had to wait weeks or months after a product’s approval to view the associated PTE applications, electronic filing provides the public with real-time visibility into PTE applications that have been filed.Overall, these are welcome improvements to the PTE filing process, reducing the administrative burden on applicants, streamlining various aspects of the filing process, and improving public availability of PTE applications. If anyone wishes to submit a comment about this proposed amendment, it must be received by the USPTO by July 5, 2022 to ensure consideration. The comment must be submitted through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at <a target="_blank" href="http://www.regulations.gov/">www.regulations.gov</a> (search docket number “PTO-P-2021-0061”).[1] The full text of the Notice can be found at <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/05/06/2022-09535/establishing-permanent-electronic-filing-for-patent-term-extension-applications" target="_blank">Federal Register: Establishing Permanent Electronic Filing for Patent Term Extension Applications</a>.

silverman_lisa_blog_150x150.png

silverman_lisa_common_640x280.jpg

silverman_lisa_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

silverman_lisa_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

silverman_lisa_social_600x600.jpg

Lisa N. Silverman focuses on patent portfolio management and strategic patent counseling in the areas of chemistry and life sciences. She has extensive experience in securing U.S. and foreign patent p

Lisa N. Silverman Ph.D.

Lisa Silverman

The USPTO Proposes to Establish Permanent Electronic Filing for Patent Term Extension Applications